Author
Topic: Federer is GOAT or this is the WEOAT !! (Read 2753 times)

Yes, I have the boldness, valour etc to come up with such a claim and is perfectly justified. Federer at 31 still dominates the Men tennis, though not at the astronomical level he was at, and continues to beat his closest rivals. Consequently, two very conflicting arguments stand up above the rest, which is a win win situation for Federer anyway it is analysed:

1. Federer is the unanimous undisputed GOAT. At 31, he continues to ride the wave of success and his apogee still obscure.

2. This is the weakest era of all time (WEOAT) and that includes Nadal, Djokovic etc who stand in the penumbra of Federer.

General Shank, only you will remember what was the temperature, humidity, precipitation, air pollution %, oxygen concentration, sun intensity etc all the conditions over which Federer won his titles. The best you can do is to write a book because these things are not recorded.

Yes, I have the boldness, valour etc to come up with such a claim and is perfectly justified. Federer at 31 still dominates the Men tennis, though not at the astronomical level he was at, and continues to beat his closest rivals. Consequently, two very conflicting arguments stand up above the rest, which is a win win situation for Federer anyway it is analysed:

1. Federer is the unanimous undisputed GOAT. At 31, he continues to ride the wave of success and his apogee still obscure.

2. This is the weakest era of all time (WEOAT) and that includes Nadal, Djokovic etc who stand in the penumbra of Federer.

General Shank, only you will remember what was the temperature, humidity, precipitation, air pollution %, oxygen concentration, sun intensity etc all the conditions over which Federer won his titles. The best you can do is to write a book because these things are not recorded.

Must admit i don't understand the last part of your post.

Ok so what do you mean by 'era' this context. I don't see specifically delineated era's in tennis. The concept of an era may have utility in certain contexts, but it's identity is a man made fabrication to outline certain historical phases. I don't see analogous phases in tennis. The idea of the GOAT is somewhat vague too, how would Nadal compete McEnroe on grass in 81 or whenever Mac was in his prime? or Nadal or even Fed against Sampras on super fast grass or against Borg with a wooden racquet? likewise how would Sampras compete against Nadal on grass now? or Fed against Borg with a wooden racquet and on and on. I only understand the GOAT as a de facto slam count, other than that you get lost in a labyrinth of hypotheticals so convoluted that you're eternally stuck in wonderland.

Logged

I am a lighthouse worn by the weather and the wavesAnd though I'm empty I still warn the sailors on their way

General Shank, if I'm permitted I can analyse your arguments in a multitude ways.In mathematics, particularly in elementary real analysis, if P means Q and P is true, then it follows that Q is also true.Your claim, Federer's 10 slams happened in a weak era. Since Nadal was in that era too, it follows that similar arguments apply to him too.Another point of attack:A player's ability to dispatch his opponents quite effortlessly should not construed as an incapacity of players rather a demonstration of greatness. If it is not so then there is no way of determining greatness when the conjecture that slam count is not sufficient. The problem you are facing is selectivity of the data that you like because you already had a justification (which might not be correct) to go with it. This is radical thinking.As much as you can say that Federer's opponents in GS finals were feeble, I can say Federer, being a bad match for Nadal, was also a feeble opponent.Any way you look at it, you are either contradicting yourself or your whole discussion is irrelevant. Choose what you prefer.

General Shank, if I'm permitted I can analyse your arguments in a multitude ways.In mathematics, particularly in elementary real analysis, if P means Q and P is true, then it follows that Q is also true.Your claim, Federer's 10 slams happened in a weak era. Since Nadal was in that era too, it follows that similar arguments apply to him too.Another point of attack:A player's ability to dispatch his opponents quite effortlessly should not construed as an incapacity of players rather a demonstration of greatness. If it is not so then there is no way of determining greatness when the conjecture that slam count is not sufficient. The problem you are facing is selectivity of the data that you like because you already had a justification (which might not be correct) to go with it. This is radical thinking.As much as you can say that Federer's opponents in GS finals were feeble, I can say Federer, being a bad match for Nadal, was also a feeble opponent.Any way you look at it, you are either contradicting yourself or your whole discussion is irrelevant. Choose what you prefer.

Roddick in 2004 & 2005 Wimby finals was anything but feeble, but Shankar wants to engage in historical revisionism.

I don't even know why I am writing this stupid comment, but either way here it goes:

First of all, I do not believe on this crap.. I still think Nadal is the best clay courter to have ever played the game... and I don't care what anybody else thinks, Fed has achieved what so few will be able to achieve in any era (weak, strong, competitive, lacking, etc. etc. etc.) But hey, as I always say, to each his own.... Then again, every now and then I kind of like to type some "ridiculous" comments like the one you are about to read!

If Fed's 10 first Slams shouldn't count due to "weak" competition, then:

Nadal's 7 RG titles shouldn't count due to "weak" or even "non existent" competition on clay.. since there are no "clay court" specialist like the 90s (as everybody is saying [and still find it ridiculous])...

I know this is ridiculous, but I am getting sick and tired of Fed haters to try and diminish Roger's achievements... every one of these people would only dream to achieve 5% of what Roger has achieved right now. Even MANY professional players (of any era) would only dream to have 10% of what Fed has now (regardless of the era).. so it is just ridiculous.

So, getting back on topic. Nadal's 7 RG are a joke as well... LOOOOOOOOOL...

Hey, just going by your standards....

Anyway, have a go at it.. what is a forum without any healthy discussion?

For the record, I don't believe in this "weak era" crap, but hey, let's argue

Nadal's 7 RG titles are jokes as well. No real contention as most of them were 3 setters and rarely 4 setters. In fact RG is the most predictable slam because of the lack of competition. The 2nd and 3rd best clay court specialists Ferrer and Almagro are just jokers. Even Federer beats them with ease on clay. That just shows how weak the clay field is.

Nadal's 7 RG titles are jokes as well. No real contention as most of them were 3 setters and rarely 4 setters. In fact RG is the most predictable slam because of the lack of competition. The 2nd and 3rd best clay court specialists Ferrer and Almagro are just jokers. Even Federer beats them with ease on clay. That just shows how weak the clay field is.

2005 - beat peak puerta, peak federer 2006 - beat peak federer 2007 - beat djokovic, peak federer 2008 - thrashed peak verdasco, peak almagro, peak federer, peak djokovic 2009 - donation 2010 - just thrashed the field before him, here the argument that he did not beat anyone solid is vague because he was already a proven great by beating solid players in the previous years2011 - took peak federer to clay school for the fifth time 2012 - welcome peak djokovic to roland garros finals with a solid 4 set hammering which would actually been straight set hammering but for the rain

all the players mentioned above are inferior to kuerten, bruguera, courier, muster etc. of the 90s but nadal beat them all very convincingly........not one of them managed to take him to 5 sets at least and they are all more than decent clay courters........

nadal however would have found it difficult to get to the finals in the 90s with a few more tough rounds but nothing more than that........he handled roland garros champions like costa, moya, ferrero(all in their peak) with ease even before he was 17........

Logged

Marian Vajda to Novak Djokovic, "I saw you beat that man like I never saw no man get beat before, and the man KEPT COMING AFTER YOU! Now we don't need no man like that in our lives."

Nadal's 7 RG titles are jokes as well. No real contention as most of them were 3 setters and rarely 4 setters. In fact RG is the most predictable slam because of the lack of competition. The 2nd and 3rd best clay court specialists Ferrer and Almagro are just jokers. Even Federer beats them with ease on clay. That just shows how weak the clay field is.

2005 - beat peak puerta, peak federer 2006 - beat peak federer 2007 - beat djokovic, peak federer 2008 - thrashed peak verdasco, peak almagro, peak federer, peak djokovic 2009 - donation 2010 - just thrashed the field before him, here the argument that he did not beat anyone solid is vague because he was already a proven great by beating solid players in the previous years2011 - took peak federer to clay school for the fifth time 2012 - welcome peak djokovic to roland garros finals with a solid 4 set hammering which would actually been straight set hammering but for the rain

all the players mentioned above are inferior to kuerten, bruguera, courier, muster etc. of the 90s but nadal beat them all very convincingly........not one of them managed to take him to 5 sets at least and they are all more than decent clay courters........

nadal however would have found it difficult to get to the finals in the 90s with a few more tough rounds but nothing more than that........he handled roland garros champions like costa, moya, ferrero(all in their peak) with ease even before he was 17........

ok... I'll get in the mix. Peak Puerta? Now even you have to laugh at that one! If you're claiming Roddick (who has a slam); and Hewitt (who also have slams) as WEAK competition for Roger.... Then you say "Puerta" is to be counted in Rafa's run as "peak"....and then you go on to use the rest of the names to defend Rafa - those SAME names that are playing in "Roger's Era" who you used to defend that as a "weak" era!!!

You can't have it both ways. If you're using all the folks Roger played in his time to justify your "weak era" stance...then you can't turn around and use those same players in Nadal's run to boost your stance that he had "strong competition". It doesn't work that way!

Though I wouldn't like mentioning it but since you are over speculating, then why did it take Nadal so long to make a Slam HC final when the field you are talking about is supposedly very weak. Because there were guys (at their peaks) like Gonzalez, Blake, Youzhny etc who were consistently beating him. He had to wait until the flare had gone out of their games before he mad his first final. But at that same time, Federer was always making important clay tournament finals, hence the 1 sided H2H.Anyhow you look at it, its a win win situation for Fed and the whole argument points at Nadal as the one who had benefited from the weak era on clay.Speculating further, had Nadal played in the 90s he wouldn't have won a single slam tournament outside of clay and even on clay, he might at most won 3. So Nadal is a 3 time slamer in my book full stop !!

Nadal's 7 RG titles are jokes as well. No real contention as most of them were 3 setters and rarely 4 setters. In fact RG is the most predictable slam because of the lack of competition. The 2nd and 3rd best clay court specialists Ferrer and Almagro are just jokers. Even Federer beats them with ease on clay. That just shows how weak the clay field is.

2005 - beat peak puerta, peak federer 2006 - beat peak federer 2007 - beat djokovic, peak federer 2008 - thrashed peak verdasco, peak almagro, peak federer, peak djokovic 2009 - donation 2010 - just thrashed the field before him, here the argument that he did not beat anyone solid is vague because he was already a proven great by beating solid players in the previous years2011 - took peak federer to clay school for the fifth time 2012 - welcome peak djokovic to roland garros finals with a solid 4 set hammering which would actually been straight set hammering but for the rain

all the players mentioned above are inferior to kuerten, bruguera, courier, muster etc. of the 90s but nadal beat them all very convincingly........not one of them managed to take him to 5 sets at least and they are all more than decent clay courters........

nadal however would have found it difficult to get to the finals in the 90s with a few more tough rounds but nothing more than that........he handled roland garros champions like costa, moya, ferrero(all in their peak) with ease even before he was 17........

ok... I'll get in the mix. Peak Puerta? Now even you have to laugh at that one! If you're claiming Roddick (who has a slam); and Hewitt (who also have slams) as WEAK competition for Roger.... Then you say "Puerta" is to be counted in Rafa's run as "peak"....and then you go on to use the rest of the names to defend Rafa - those SAME names that are playing in "Roger's Era" who you used to defend that as a "weak" era!!!

You can't have it both ways. If you're using all the folks Roger played in his time to justify your "weak era" stance...then you can't turn around and use those same players in Nadal's run to boost your stance that he had "strong competition". It doesn't work that way!

But if it makes you happy...go ahead!

Exactly. It's a weak era, so Rafa's 7 RGs are worthless. Right, Start da Game? Borg is still the King of Clay. Let's not forget that he retired at 26. If he hadn't retired, he could have won another 6 RGs easily!

P.S - Rafa did not face Moya, Costa and Ferrero at their peak. They all peaked before Rafa started playing LOL.

Pity peak Guga wasn't there to thrash Rafa's topspin. Moya himself remarked a long time ago that Guga was the only guy who he thought could beat Rafa on clay.